Commentary on "Genetic harm: bitten by the body that keeps you?

Several important issues are raised and illuminated in "Genetic Harm"; not least, in its detailed discussion of specific genetic disorders. In particular, it focuses on a type of disorder whose ill effects are not manifested at birth, but only at a later stage in life. The conclusion, with its significant implications for practice, seems quite valid: a moral duty should be recognized to genetically (or otherwise, if feasible) cure an embryo of that which is expected to (later) cause such prospective suffering. Yet the reasons given for that conclusion, as well as much of the argument throughout, concentrate on a debatable notion of "harm". On an alternate account -- drawn in terms of personal identity -- what makes the moral difference in this type of case is rather that the genotype manifests itself, and that a life-history begins, prior to (and thus independently of) any effects of the gene(s) we are called to alter.